I misphrased, I meant to say all learning/adaptive AI systems are matrix based.
Symbolic systems are hard coded, and can’t learn or adapt to new input data, they can exclusively handle inputs that were explicitly hard coded into the system. Symbolic AI systems also imo are a bit of a misnomer nowadays, as they kind of blur the line between AI and just any old programming script. Arguably any code that contains even a single “if” or “switch” statement to handle an external input is technically symbolic AI, which includes almost every type of script and program in existence, making the term somewhat useless. Input gender -> if gender = M: output “hello sir” else if gender = F: output “hello madam” else: output “hello” is a symbolic AI. and with the prevelance of trained AI nowadays, I wouldn’t really consider it useful or descriptive to call symbolic systems AI, as opposed to just calling them a script/program.
Though that doesn’t invalidate my general point. If you’re upset about calling a complex matrix network AI because it’s “just matrices” then Symbolic systems would be even less “worthy” of that term, they’re just a list of “if else” statements. So my general point still stands, by OPs standards, literally nothing could ever be called AI, even a perfect simulation of an entire human brain with true artificial consciousness wouldn’t be worthy of the term “AI” by OPs logic.
You cannot invalidate what is called AI just because of the advancements in the fields, what you just described although simple is indeed AI and automation was humanities first attempt at AI anyways. On the other hand yes OPs point of view is invalid and I think that’s just part of the meme
Actually I can, language is fluid and changes and develops all the time, it is entirely possible for the definitions and colloquial understanding of words and terms to change and evolve as technology, science and society evolves.
Not quite, AI is split into three paradigms: symbolic, connectionist and semi-symbolic, you only considered the connectionist one
I misphrased, I meant to say all learning/adaptive AI systems are matrix based.
Symbolic systems are hard coded, and can’t learn or adapt to new input data, they can exclusively handle inputs that were explicitly hard coded into the system. Symbolic AI systems also imo are a bit of a misnomer nowadays, as they kind of blur the line between AI and just any old programming script. Arguably any code that contains even a single “if” or “switch” statement to handle an external input is technically symbolic AI, which includes almost every type of script and program in existence, making the term somewhat useless. Input gender -> if gender = M: output “hello sir” else if gender = F: output “hello madam” else: output “hello” is a symbolic AI. and with the prevelance of trained AI nowadays, I wouldn’t really consider it useful or descriptive to call symbolic systems AI, as opposed to just calling them a script/program.
Though that doesn’t invalidate my general point. If you’re upset about calling a complex matrix network AI because it’s “just matrices” then Symbolic systems would be even less “worthy” of that term, they’re just a list of “if else” statements. So my general point still stands, by OPs standards, literally nothing could ever be called AI, even a perfect simulation of an entire human brain with true artificial consciousness wouldn’t be worthy of the term “AI” by OPs logic.
You cannot invalidate what is called AI just because of the advancements in the fields, what you just described although simple is indeed AI and automation was humanities first attempt at AI anyways. On the other hand yes OPs point of view is invalid and I think that’s just part of the meme
Actually I can, language is fluid and changes and develops all the time, it is entirely possible for the definitions and colloquial understanding of words and terms to change and evolve as technology, science and society evolves.